2008-04-21

Yes, I mean Nepal. My geography is good enough to know Nepal from T0bed to its north, unlike the host who interviewed the US government official (my theory differs from the American left - the Security Adviser did it on purpose and host Stephanopolous did not, or was so absorbed in his 'pointed questions' that he did not care).

For the case of To-bed (东躲）, enough have been said about how the editor/boss abuse the MSM to suit his own prejudice or agenda, or simply to reflect the partial point of view he sees, in which he either abandoned the ethic or was just unprofessional. So I thought I should look at other topics/geographies, to see if the same phenomenon is observed, without the noise of racism, or anti-China agenda. So I browsed MSM coverage on an adjacent country, by a much more respected media, the Economist. The Economist is reputed for its quality and 'neutrality'. So the shortfall in the Economist will probably mean there is similar flaw across the whole of MSM. (The reverse may not necessarily be true)

More worrying, most of the pre-election violence was carried out by one of the main contestants: the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which in 2006 ended a decade-long armed struggle. Its 23,000-strong rebel army is corralled under UN eyes, but intact. On the stump, Maoist leaders argued that anything less than a sweeping victory for their party would be evidence of massive rigging.

That was ominous: the Maoists are believed, in the absence of any reliable opinion poll, to be widely detested. But that they took part in the election—twice postponed, once on their account—was worth celebrating. Nepal, a country of 28m people, is a poor, lawless and fractious place. It faces worsening ethnic, caste-based and regional conflicts. The hoarding of power and riches in the capital, Kathmandu, causes huge resentment, which fed the Maoist insurgency. Indeed, under the terms of a shambling peace process, the basic shape of the Nepali state is an open question. The election has improved the odds the answer will be found peacefully.

Assuming, that is, the Maoists accept the results. Winning at least 80 seats—out of a possible 601—is rumoured to be the bottom line for their continued commitment to democracy. But a convoluted electoral system, voter intimidation and the passage of time since Nepal's last serious election, in 1999, make the outcome hard to predict. The aggrieved southerners should also win at least 80 seats, though split between different parties. They are one of several marginalised ethnic or caste groups for whom a block of seats has been reserved. The Terai lot successfully agitated for improved terms in February through a two-week blockade of Kathmandu.

Reading this, my impression was, the Maoists are "widely detested" ("albeit absent of any reliable poll") in Nepal, and ([hence]), they probably won't accept the results, because they wanted to win at least 80 seats (out of a total of 601). Except that, I only got to read this issue one week later. i.e. I already knew the election result, as reported, e.g., by the Economist

The former rebels surprise everyone with a stunning electoral success. That may prove to have been the easy part

Defying every prediction but its own, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), until two years ago a feared rebel army, won handsomely.

A complicated electoral system, in which around 40% of seats are directly elected and 60% through proportional representation, has held up final results. But the Maoists, proscribed by America as terrorists, were on course for a clear majority in the first tranche, with 119 seats out of 224. And they had 33% of the vote in the second. They will certainly be the biggest party, but without a majority, in a 601-seat assembly, which will have a 30-month term limit and will be charged with drafting a new constitution.

The Maoists ended a decade-long armed struggle in 2006, after Nepal's King Gyanendra, who the previous year had seized absolute power, was compelled by street protests to hand it back. Entering a coalition government with six political parties, the scrubbed-up insurgents committed themselves to the democratic process. To many, this looked like either a tactical ploy or noble folly. Led by a charismatic guerrilla, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, or Prachanda (“awesome”, pictured above), the Maoists held sway in much of Nepal. But they were thought to be loathed for their part in a nasty war that left more than 10,000 dead. Most pundits expected them to be trounced at the polls.

They reckoned without three factors. First was the Maoists' manipulation of the result. Thugs from several parties terrorised voters. European Union observers of the election concluded it was held in a “general atmosphere of fear and intimidation”. But the Maoists' thugs were chiefly to blame. The party's candidates also hinted that if it lost, they might resume the war. And no doubt, in the country's many remote and lawless places, some voters wanted the Maoists in faraway Kathmandu—not their forests, stealing their food and pressganging their children.

Yet even near Kathmandu, where some 2,000 foreign election observers were clustered and there were few reports of malpractice, the Maoists won seven of 15 directly elected seats.In the eastern Terai area, next to India, the Maoists had been supplanted by local nationalist groups, both armed and democratic. Yet they have so far won ten out of 27 seats there.

A second explanation for the results is more convincing: that Nepalis were sick of the alternatives. These were chiefly the Nepali Congress (NC) party, which dominates the ruling coalition, and its traditional rival, a mainstream leftist party known as the UML (for “Unified Marxist-Leninist”). Both were tarnished by spells of corrupt and ineffective rule during the 1990s. As for King Gyanendra, he can also take his cue from the electorate. At the Maoists' insistence, the 240-year-old monarchy was provisionally abolished in December—a sentence that the next assembly is due to confirm. This seemed undemocratic at the time; it doesn't now. Nepal's three small royalist parties won no directly elected seat: ie, one fewer than the tiny Nepal Workers' and Peasants' Party, which supports North Korea's Kim Jong Il.

..As the biggest party of government, the Maoists may now be in a position to insist. However, their deputy leader, Baburam Bhattarai, implies that they will test their new strength carefully. “Before, we were in a stage of making demands; now we are in a stage of implementation,” he said, seated beneath a poster exhorting workers everywhere to unite behind “Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Prachandaism!!” This last “ism”, which describes the Maoists' struggle as a “bourgeois peasant revolution”, is tricky to pin down. Their economic policies, which include seeking foreign investment for Nepal's hydropower industry, seem quite liberal. Many of their social policies, which the Maoists describe as a war against “feudalism”, are also laudable. Besides scrapping a discredited monarchy, they would fight caste-based discrimination, the deprivation of tribal groups and the exploitation of landless labourers. For poor Nepalis, all this makes a popular message. That is the third—weirdly overlooked—reason for the peasant revolutionaries' great victory. Of course, making big promises is easier than keeping them, and the Maoists will disappoint. The question is: how badly?

Now you can see, how presumption could blind even the high-IQ, mostly oxbridge-educated Economist researchers and editors, as reflected in the difference between its two reports, and how it has learned (together with its readers). The "Maoist" must be bad and detested (which could be safely assumed "absence of any reliable poll"), since Mao himself had made so many major mistakes in China in his later years, and that other Maoist (Peruvian) had failed eventually. What the Economist had "weirdly" overlooked was, the similarity in Nepal today vs China in the early half of the last century, or for that matter, T1-bet in 1950s with a "“feudalism with caste-based discrimination".

Now let's go back to Tobed, and the Olympic, and see how it was reported by the Economist --not sure if James Miles wrote it, or a heavy-handed editor chipped in and secretly loaded the language

The torch's bad week started in London on April 6th, where hundreds of protesters dogged it, as it was passed from famous hand to hand. At one point, protesters were blocked as it was whisked to Chinatown to give China's ambassador the chance to clasp it for a while. China's flag had an outing too. Hundreds of Chinese students were bused in. Some protesters were unruly, and 37 arrested.

This looks like an even handed writing, at first. Except if you read a bit more carefully. Are the "hundreds of Chinese students "bused in"? (or some of the hundreds took the bus?) The way I understand "bused in" is some pre-arranged trip for some elderly innocent people who may not know where they were bused to when they boarded the bus. Is this what our reader could have thought as well (or are intended to be led to think so)? When "some" protesters became unruly, clearly both side, but more likely, "some of those hundreds who bused in" (it was deliberately unclear given where this line is located) were unruly, one was led to think. In reality, was any single one of the 37 arrested those Chinese students? The Economist must have known the answer. But it would try not to clarify. Propaganda is better this way.

Further down,

The torch was guarded not just by the police but by a phalanx of Chinese men in blue-and-white tracksuits. Their jurisdiction was hazy, but their demeanour unmistakable. As Lord Coe, chairman of the committee organising the 2012 London Olympics, was heard to say, they were “thugs”. Their presence outraged even those who could not find Tibet on a map.

...The Chinese press have called the thugs in blue and white “valiant and heroic”. It has reported that the squad is made up of officers from the paramilitary People's Armed Police, who have been training for this role since last August, including learning to give orders in five languages.

Tobed and China is not small country like Nepal. I am also pretty sure the Economist knows the complexity of the Tobed issue (many smaller media could pass as an honest mistake or being ignorance. But I have too much respect for the Economist for such a simple explanation). Yet for Nepal it reckoned its mistake and tried hard to find an explanation, perhaps successfully, while in the case of Tobed it continues to plunge and self-indulge.

The lesson of the comparison of the 2 Nepal reports:

The press has its prejudice, due to lack of information, laziness or lack of resources, which is the same in either the case of Nepal or Tobet. In these two cases the link to communist or mao puts one in innate disadvantage. Perhaps our friend 88s has correctly put it, had the C-cp changed its name and claim to be no longer communist, as it really is not, the whole situation may be different

The Economist (or MSM, or Western in general), respect democracy. i.e., had the Chinese government gone through the test of democracy, like the Maoist in Nepal did, the MSM might eventually have to go through a soul-searching process (like the Economist in its second article). Perhaps until that day, the MSM is still against China, consciously or subconsciouly?

It thence appears, it is not really free reporting in T0bet that had contributed to the MSM biase. It is the original sin of China as a communist country in name (even though it is now more capitalistic than 2/3 of the European countries), and perhaps also about other something, for example, this, and this.

Size does matter. An a limited scale boycott demonstrated the China consumer power. The Chinese citizens seems to have won a small battle in the game of boycotting buff with the West. But it is hard to see who will win the war in the longer term.

Simple economic: free market economy values choice. The more choices you have, the more opportunity you will find a better deal.

As a result, any boycott in trade, whether it hurts your target or not, hurts yourself first.

That is why I always think boycott, any kind of boycott, be it Chinese product, Olympic, Carrefour, are stupid ideas. Threatening of a boycott is also in general a bad idea, though there is occasional exception -- i.e., if you achieve your objective before you begin to hurt your own interest. The American have palyed this game on "Made in China" for quite a while, only in very isolated cases it worked.

So it is time for the Chinese citizens (and netizens) to claim victory and retreat. Carrefour is (1) innocent and (2) surrendered. There is really no point fighting again. Continue the boycott will not only hurt both side, but worst of all, it will convince Carrefour that it does not really matter what it does (see earlier post of why you should tell the truth if you really want to help the Tibetans)

If they still find themselves energetic, then bluff at Mercedes-Benz/BMW, or Walmart. But the games of bluffing are dangerous, they could backfire. Because anyone who is calling for a boycott of any kind, remember there are a few conditions that need to be met

A specific result (which is achievable). e.g. a clarification announcement from Carrefour's major sharehold Arnault is one, something which violates WTO rules is not

You need to be able to materialize your bluff. It seems Arnault yielded before we could see how large the impact on Carrefour could be. Apparently the capitalists does not want to risk even a single cent of revenue

There is cost in any kind of boycott. So the calculate your cost before carrying it out. Usually your cost is higher than the cost of your target (anyone venture a proof?)

If your bluff is called and couldn't be fulfilled. Then you can never bluff again. (e.g., the Schumer-Graham Bill)

---p.s. The fact that I do not buy Luis Vuitton because I think it is over priced is not an act of boycott, but an act of expressing my personal choice.

p.s.2. Why boycott is a bad idea

While I agree with Jin Jing on not boycotting, I do not agree with her reasoning (I also disagree with those who disagree just for the sake of disagreeing with the angry netizens, they have become angry netizens themselves by saying so)

Jin Jing said boycotting Careefour will hurt its employee's, this is not quite true

(1) A limited boycott will only hurt short term profit, not the employees, assuming Carrefour started as a financially sound company

(2) Boycotting Carrefour mean purchasing somewhere else (the demand is still there), so whoever laid off by Carrefour could still find job in, e.g. Walmart, as revenue is shifted there and so is the job opening

This works in parallel to Americans(or French) boycotting Made in China goods, the factory may shift to Vietnam but the demand change is usually small (unlesss price is changed significant)

In the end, the consumer (whoever limited himself with less choice) is the one who suffer (most), as he is seeking a less than optimal deal

Having said that, there are other reasons not to boycott Carrefour. Carrefour's operating in China, assuming it is reasonably successful, means it has contributed to China by bringing in competition and hence skills. As a result, the Lian Hua/etc needs to play catch up (and it could poach managers Carrefour trained). In the longer run, perhaps this would stimulate a strong retail enterprise from China (maybe Lian Hua or Jingkelong/etc).

-- this is, in addition to Carrefour helping the Chinese consumer to get better service and price from the retailing industry.

But mind you, this is a double edged sword. This is a way to show people's power. Imagine what would have conquered your MSN screen were it there exactly 19 years ago, or more precisely the couple days after April 15, and how the signs would have changed in the 2 months that followed. Because of this thought, I have hearted China wholeheartedly today, on my MSN.

---

However, the best propganda of the day has to be this one (via Hecaitou). It demonstrates, sort of, a similar analogy (youtube link here) --- after you finished, see this link for the theory.

2008-04-16

1) Here is a blog post from Philadelphia Inquirer on the pop song "Don't be too CNN". The Youtube video (via ESWN) is not accessible directly here in China (!!!) but can be viewed via that blog site. The blog also links to a Reuter video on the song.

The video is also not availablein other Chinese youtube clones (eg tudou), perhaps because the right was given to CCTV.com (!!!!!). Well, as we all know, putting it on cctv just provides ammunition for the "western media" (from the way that the report misread her surname we know how good the reporter understands China or even bother to check with any Chinese speaking person) to discret her. Not sure what went on the mind of this Ms Muyong Xuan. But cctv.com is not likely to let this piece of meat slip from its mouth. It is about internet traffic, clicks and pay-per-click and money.

2) "A Year in Tibet" was aired in BBC (whic started on March 6, a week beore the riot started). Video download links included in the post - look for tinyurl, they are bittorrents (or here). I do not have time to view it yet. According to the blogger it seems to be a balanced report. (I seem to remember reading a blog in 1510, complaining the biase in a BBC documentary, I suspect it is the very same one. So "balanced" or not is really very subjective)

What amused me is the blogger found a new substitute for the taboo T word. In Han chinese it literally could mean "Hidding in the West" and there is a proverb in Chinese called "Shun in East and Hide in West". It took me a while to figure out where the hell "Dongduo 东躲 " (Shunned in East) refers to.GFW did eventually contributed something to us, fodder for humour.

2008-04-13

I received this sms, from a very senior executive of an major MNC (i.e. extremely unexpected)

Forwarded to me from a friend, thanks for your attention.

"May 8-24, exactly 3 months before the Olympic. Everybody boycott Careefour. Reason: major shareholder of Carrefour donated huge sum to Dalai Lama. In France the T-I supporters are plentiful, even the French President vowed to boycott the Olympic as a result. The duration of the boycott is the same as the duration of the Olympic, 17 days long. Let them see the power of Chinese and Chinese network [internet and sms, I suppose].

Please forward

Chinese version can now be found in many internet sites (e.g.) 5月8日-24日，正好是北京奥运会的三个月之前。所有人都不要去家乐福购物，理由是家乐福的大股东捐巨资给达赖，法国支持藏独者甚众，甚至法国总统也因此而声言抵制北京奥运会。那们现在就抵制一下家乐福，为期与北京奥运会同长，前后17天。让他们看看中国人和中国网络的力量。请转发给你所有的手机、MSN等的联络人，并且让他们的家人一起参与。让家乐福门可罗雀17天！

Well, I do not know how true the accusation on "Carrefour's major shareholder(s)" is. So I googled to find this article (which did not help)

While I do not know whether Carrefour is 'guilty' as alleged, I am impressed by how thoughtful the boycott has been planned

It only ask for a 17 day boycott, instead of an all out boycott which is not practical

It stated its objective very clearly, "to show the power of the 'network' "

The start date if May 8th, allowing for sufficient time of networking

Whatever the result is, I bet Carrefour would not release its sales figure. So it may be a futile effort to show the 'power of the network' or 'power of the chinese economic influence', well, unless someone is doing "exit poll" at the doors of the carrefour, to compare the sales (or just count the number of visitors) at its doors.

The power of the network, as we all know, is a double-edge sword. (c.f. PX incidence)

Since it demonstrates the people's power, be it justifiable or not for this particular incidence, I will like to see the results in some quantified form.

It is extremely unclear whether he knows " what is going on there", not to say understands. But it doesn't really matter. The more important issue seems to be what he stated in the next second. The same goes for the Chinese people who vowed to join the boycott. My hypothesis (from googling the internet forum) is that it seems to be that they first idenitifed Carrefour as a feasible target, before the donation allegation surfaced.

2008-04-11

I have always thought BBC was better than CNN (though not as good as the Economist, but certainly on par with the Guardian).

Well, it could be brain dead at time.

In a bid to defend its (and the fellow western media's) "neutral" coverage, it went in great length to show that it is better than "People's Daily"! So now we all know the western media are as fair and unbiased as Xinhua and People's Daily.Even after so much disappointment not just recently, I still held thought that they were way above the bar set by the Xinhua's and PD's. Seems that BBC is telling me I was wrong.

Update: is the West justified in criticizing China in its human right record? Yes, according to this Chinese writer. But just say human right, the situation in Tibet is mild compared with many other places in China.

But is the coverage itself perpetuating anti-China bias? And how are Chinese journalists covering the same events? Here is a snapshot of some of the prominent coverage:

SAN FRANCISCOUS pressThere was a tight focus on the protests and the disruption they caused.The New York Times described the torch's progress around the city as an "elaborate game of hide-and-seek... as city officials secretly rerouted the planned torch relay, swarmed its runners with blankets of security and then whisked the torch to the airport in a heavily guarded motorcade".The San Francisco Chronicle also focused heavily on the change of route. Under the headline: "No torch, no problem - they came to protest", the paper painted a picture of a colourful array of protesters, all with different axes to grind, both pro and anti-China.In a strident editorial, the Washington Post reflected on the events, saying: "The Chinese are seeing for themselves how public opinion around the world has been repulsed by their government's cynical and amoral foreign policy in places such as Sudan and Burma and by its repression of the Tibetan minority."Chinese pressUnder headlines including "Olympic torch relay concludes in San Francisco without major incidents" and "Chinese ambassador: Olympic torch relay in San Francisco 'successful'", state-run news agency Xinhua generally painted a positive picture of the relay.The protests were mentioned in Xinhua's main news story, where it reported: "At one point, Tibetan separatists tried to disrupt the torch relay. They tried to grab the torch, but were pushed back by police escorting the torch relay."Further down, the Xinhua article states: "Many San Francisco citizens expressed dismay at attempts to link the Olympic Games with politics."Another state-run outlet, China Daily, carried articles similar in tone, with headlines including: "San Franciscans denounce disruptions." It also published picture galleries of angry clashes between pro-China and anti-China demonstrators.

PARIS French pressThere were straightforward headlines, including Le Parisien's "The fiasco" and L'Equipe's "Paris extinguishes the flame", combined with much reporting of the protests, with colour from the scene in most papers.The left-leaning daily Liberation reported how the torch was greeted with jeers by protesters, who threw flags with an image of Olympic rings as handcuffs.Right-leaning Le Figaro had some words of comfort for the Chinese government, arguing in an editorial: "While the defence of Tibetans is a noble cause, the gesticulations that we have witnessed over the holding of the Olympic Games in Paris are exaggerated."The paper claims that the Beijing Olympics is a "golden opportunity" to advance the cause of liberty in China.Chinese pressXinhua's coverage of the Paris protests kicked off with the headline "French official lashes out at 'kidnapping of Olympics'".In the archive of Xinhua's website, direct reporting of the protests that accompanied the torch around Paris is scant.A one-line dispatch states: "The Olympic Torch was put on an accompanying bus due to technical reasons for the third time during its relay in the French capital Monday afternoon, a Xinhua photographer witnessed."But there was considerable focus on the torchbearers, particularly Jin Jing, a disabled athlete who competes in the Paralympics. She was holding the torch during protests.The Shanghai Daily reported: "A craven protester has attacked a wheelchair-bound female torchbearer from Shanghai being pushed by a blind Chinese teammate during the Paris section of the Beijing Olympics torch relay."Xinhua also focused on Ms Jin, putting out several dispatches describing her bravery and reporting on how she received a hero's welcome when she returned home.

LONDONUK pressEven before the torch touched down in London, the British media was speculating about possible protests.On 5 April the Times reported under the headline "Police fear Olympic torch protests after China shootings in Tibet", following up the next day with "Met on protest alert as Olympic torch lands".The Daily Telegraph preview of the London torch route concluded that the protests were "bringing light to political murk", and the paper's website later invited its readers to answer the question: Will you be boycotting the 2008 Olympics?The tabloids rustled up a chorus of disapproval of China, with the Daily Mirror labelling the London leg of the torch's journey a "disturbing farce".Under the headline "flaming injustice", the Mirror said: "The oppressive security needed to protect the Olympic torch in London should ram home to China's dictators what the world really thinks of them."

Chinese pressOne of Xinhua's main news stories began with a flowery passage proclaiming: "The unseasonable snow in London did little to dampen people's passion for Beijing's Olympic flame as large crowds lined the street to greet the torch relay on Sunday."The piece went on to describe the torch as a "sacred symbol of the Olympic spirit" spreading the "ideal of peace, friendship and progress" and labelled any attempt to "sabotage" the torch relay as running "against the trend of the times".Xinhua published several pieces devoted to the protests, under headlines including "London police foil attempt to grab Olympic torch away".But the main focus of their coverage was the colour and carnival of the torch's procession - an interview with classical violinist Vanessa Mae was more typical.

2008-04-10

The streets around Potala looks just as normal as it could be, except for a few PAP on the East side. I was perhaps the only no-Tibetan walking together with perahps a thousand Tibetan people, but I feel quite safe. Occasionally there are a few suspicious eyes but when I smiled at them most smiled back.The Northeast side of the route is a market, where many of the hawkers are Han Chinese.(When I was in Xinjiang a few years ago, the eyes (on average) seems more suspicous/hostile)

Aerial map of Potala Palace (the red "B" to the right are the burnt building, further east and south are the areas cover in anecdote (1) )

Potala Palace from the south og Beijing Road. The 5 star flag and a few guards in morning

The view to south (front door) from atop Potala. Tibetans praying in the front of the Palace (on Beijing Road)

Tibetans pray in front of Potala

Front gate. Tibetans waited at the Potala gate. By showing a Tibetan ID they can enter Potala (I assume other monasteries as well) for free, since this is part of their religious activities

Walking up the stairs on Potala

Tibetan Pilgrims. For security reason liquid is not allowed in (!). But this Tibetan pilgrim has a thermo-flask. I had been puzzled for a while but later found that it was a container for the "candle oil"

Atop the palace. A dozen PAP there seems to be quite relaxed. One of their jobs is stopping people from taking pictures upstairs.

"Pagodas" on Northeast corner under Potala

East side of Potala: crowd full of Tibetan pilgrims

West side of Potala. Tibetans walk around the Palace. The pilgrims perform the ritual (full body on floor facing downward) at the front (The pilgrims from out of town have to do this every few steps for the whole journey).

Tibetan collecting ashes. They pack and take it home. I do not know how the ashes are used. For Han Chinese they used it to make soup/tea to cure diseases (which is clearly unscientific).

"Dharma wheels" (法轮) around the Potala

Crowd. Seems a festival or a market day. This reminds me of Causeway Bay in HK, except the sky is bluer, and air fresher.

Update on Death Toll from Tibet demonstrationsMar 27, 2008 in NewsUpdate for Tuesday, 25 March 2008, last updated 3 pm (IST)While the most recent death toll from the demonstrations in Tibet is around 140, we are releasing the names and details of 40 identified people.Since the start of the Demonstrations in Tibet on March 10, there has been a steady rise in the death toll. As the demonstrations continue to spread vastly to many areas in Tibet, the number of people who have died from the brutal military and police suppression during the peaceful demonstrations is astounding.While we have confirmed information on the death toll from the demonstrations so far, it has been extremely difficult to get the details due to all the restrictions that have been imposed by Chinese authorities, especially since March 10th.The most recent death toll from the demonstrations in Tibet is around 140 and we are releasing the names and details of 40 identified people. While we do have reliable information on other individuals killed during the demonstrations, we are gathering more comprehensive information before we release more names from the death toll list.We have reliable sources confirming the death of numerous individuals killed during the recent demonstrations; however, we are still in the process of gathering more details (such as name and place of residence). For instance, while we can confirm that during the protest in Dabpa County (Karze “Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture,” Sichuan province), an elderly person, a young girl and a boy were shot and killed by the Chinese military, further details are still being gathered.Many of the dead bodies from the recent demonstrations are being turned into the People’s Procuratorates instead of being returned to their respective families. This has also made it more difficult to gather details on the death toll.

43 Gyalpo 33 M Phenpo Lhundrup (Ch: Lingzhi) County, Lhasa Municipality Died on March 26 due to severe injuries sustained from beatings during demonstrations

44 Dawa Male DagpoTownship, Phenpo Lhundrup (Ch: Lingzhi) County, Lhasa Municipality Died on March 27 due to severe injuries sustained from beatings during demonstrations

It is quite likely that the 140 or 150 number is an exaageration. But it is normal under such confused condition. Let's try to verify if the 44 is an honest number. Well, if there are a couple of them really died during 14th, before the riot, the the riot is probably justified.

I think the government said that 3 of the casulties (when the total was 12) were Tibetan fleeing arrest, "jumped from the building".

14:19, April 07, 2008People whose names were included on a list of riot victims given by the Dalai clique are still alive, an investigation by Lhasa police has found.The Dalai clique's "government-in-exile" on March 25 released the "names and details of 40 identified people" alleged to have died in the recent riots.

However, the Lhasa police bureau found five of the people are still alive or never existed. The other 35 people, whom the clique merely mentioned the birthplaces or residences of as "Lhasa, Tibet" or "Aba, Sichuan province", were impossible to locate, the police said.

The Dalai clique announced the death of 31-year-old Lobsang Tsepel in Sera Monastery. However, the police investigation found the monk, 36, was still in the monastery.

The investigation found there were 12 people whose names include Ngodup at Tibet University, and all of them were alive and still working there. The Dalai clique had said a 28-year-old by that name had been killed in the unrest.Also, Lobsang Doma, of the Garu Nunnery, was age 39 and alive - not 23 and dead, as the Dalai clique had claimed.There was nobody named Rigzin Choenyi in the Shugseb Nunnery, while the nunnery has two people whose names included only the Rigzin part, and both were alive.Also, there was nobody named Ngawang Thekchen in Taklung Drak Monastery, the investigation found.

.....Source: China Daily

Commentators below will be the judge (and also updaters). I think we all want the real truth.

2008-04-08

I had refrained from commenting on the Tibet issue, as I really had nothing new to add. I think I am with the mainstream and informed rationals, Chinese or Western. After my Lhasa trip, and seeing the continued media distortion (e.g. 1, 2), I feel there is something I need to say.

1) The Tibetans have the right of self determination. Their freedom and their rights supersedes whatever history argument. Even if it would mean that T1bet will become a satellite state of the American or Indian imperialists like Mongolia had become of the USSR, it is their choice

2) PRC has legitimate claim to Tibet (just as legitime as UK over North Ireland, Canada over Montreal, France over New Calendonia and other Pacific islands, USA over the various Indian Reserves and every single other inch of land it owns, and more legitimate than Israel over Gaza and West Bank), however, refer to (1) above.

3) Western media, people and governments apply double standard toward PRC vs the other cases above

4) There might have been brutal crackdown in 1987-1989. But what happened in March 2008 is really no different from Los Angeles in 1992

One of the arguments is what the West was not able to see all of Lhasa during that week (Mar 10-17). Bloggers and reporters like James Miles disclaim that they can only talk about what they saw. And "PRC is to be blamed because they do not know about what happened in areas that they were not allowed to see"

Well, after my Lhasa trip, I was quite certain that there is nothing Mr James Miles and blogger Kadfly/etc had not seen. Because, if you look at the maps in my previous post, we have seen photos and witness accounts on almost all of Lhasa where there was demonstration and riot, except a few alleys. There was actually not much that the PRC government had been able to hide (just examine the map)

Furthermore, so far no picture or video had been provided to prove any brutality of PAP during that week in Lhasa. On the contrary, we had seen pictures of wounded PAP and violence from the demonstrator. and stones thrown at PAP shield formations, plus shield phalanx being broken through with PAP heads bleeding

While there had been claims of 80-100 dead in Lhasa from pro-Tibetan organizations/individuals, they had not been able to provide a single name or picture! (not to say picture or PAP beating up demonstrators -- I am sure some demonstrator had the handphone to take such picture. It is surreal no western reporter or commentator has asked such question (had they done so they may risk being lynched by the Richard Gere's of this world)

In Kadfly's pictures, we can see clearly that the PAP has been very restrained, and let the demonstrators stoned through the alley

All the above, is not to say that Freedom of Speech should be violated. I am just saying the PAP approach was not "brutal", which seems to be the word every western media had chosen to use automatically

5) Of course, the ideal situation is for PRC government to hold dialogue with the demonstrators and allows for a referedum. But we all know that this is not possible, not in the near term, unless something drastic happens in China, which is also extremely unlikely

6) What the western media, and the Richard Gere's have done now, by ignoring or distorting the improved and restrained efforts by the PRC, is to deny its effort to adopt a relatively restrained approach to the demonstration and demonise it

7) Now try to put yourself into the shoes of the PAP commanders. You have two options.

stay back and act like a civilize western anti-riot police, use tear gas and your bare hands, perhaps suffering some casualties

use force, bats, or even gun -- the most convenient way to gain control

What would you do if the result is the same anyway. i.e. you would be condemned as people shooters in either case, whether you are black or white (most likely you are light gray) you will still be painted black. Is there still such need to "pretend"?

---

When I was in Lhasa, just when I became fairly convinced that the PAP had been restrained (listening to words from both Hans and Tibetans). My Blackberry showed a news article from Apple Daily that a few were killed in Sichuan (Chamdo area). At first I doubted the credibility. But I saw victim names were quoted for the first time. Then the reasoning above (#7) came to my mind. I am starting to worry about these Tibetan people.

I doubt if TYL cares about the death of a few fellow Tibetans. After all, "Revolution is not taking your guests to a dinner" (Mao Zedong quote). But I suppose such an outcome (PAP choosing the convenient approach) is certainly not what Dalai Lama wants. If this is not what Dalai Lama wants to see, I suppose this should not be what the Richard Gere's want to happen.

Now I don't give a damn about the Olympic torch relay in Paris or San Francisco. Such shows are rather silly and I do not think the disruption means much to the majority of the Chinese people who do not even see it on their TV, perhaps the government would care but I do not care what it cares. What such silly ascts achieve is to feed fodder for quarrels (For the TYL/Geres it could mean gaining support over from Dalai Lama). But I care about the aftermath to the Tibetan people, they are our cousins. So I urge the western media and the Richard Gere's, to give some credit to what PRC has done between March 10-17. Tell them the 2 approaches are different, with your action.

---

I met an old man while touring Potala. He has some difficulty walking up and down the steps. I offered to hold his hand down the stairs and we were together for rest of the tour. We talked little as his Han is not very fluent but we were able to communicate in simple sentences. I know he is from Chamdo and lived in Lhasa for about 20 years. At the end of the trip he mumbled next to my ears something like "Dalai Lama Ho--". I do not know what exactly he meant but I could guess. Another lady who have been walking with him then showed me a faded picture of his 2 sons (in mid-teen) and said they are in India. I asked "Daramsala?" and they nodded and smiled at me.

I know they would do whatever Dalia Lama tell them to do. They had perhaps burned their fur a few years ago.

But this is what they think and believe in. And all I know is they are nice and kind people not unlike our aunts and uncles. I do not want them to sacrifice and suffer for the gain of some politicians, Han or Tibetan politician, or European/American pseudo-politicians. It is easy to talk about freedom and democracy when you live in mansions on Hollywood hill. But it is a crime to sacrifice the lives of the people you claim to love and save, even indirectly and unintentionally.

---

P.S. Reading what I have written again, I realize this is just one way to reason for a non-violent, less-confrontative approach. But I do believe such approach is the more productive (and perahps the only) option available to the Tibetan -- because of the imbalance of power, and demography, the confrontational approach will get you nowhere.

The Romoche block - guarded (the "PAP Shield formation is refers to this photo taken by kadfly on 3-14)

The Jokhang Block - guarded (this map is right south of the map above)

There were check points in the alleys around the 2 blocks leading to the 2 major monasteries which seems to be the focal points of the riot in mid-March. (above and below photo from google earth -- see coordinates at the bottom of the first map)

They checked IDs at each point. Only residents were allowed in.Therefore, most businesses in the alleys were closed, except for convenience stores and small Tibetan teahouses, which caters to the locals.

I picked a small alley and ventured into the North (the Ramoche block). I was surpised when they just let me in without a question, after checking my ID. I proceeded and went to another check point (marked as "C's" on the maps above) and asked the guards how to get to Romoche Monastery (I was a bit lost inside the alley maze). The young men even told me the direction. "make a left", "Is it closed?", "I don't know". So I was happy until I reached the east gate of Ramoche, where I saw a dozen PAP hands in hands blocking the gate. I asked and was told to go away (not surprising by then). I took a picture with my handphone pretending to be talking (see picture below, I couldn't look at the screen when I ended up taking the left 1/4 of the gate).

I wandered around a bit in front of the Ramoche. There are plenty of people, children in school uniforms are going home, playing soccers in the alleys. If you ignore the PAP, it is almost like a usual afternoon, sans tourists.

My adventure to the Johkang block was not as lucky. I was turned away a couple times at the alley entrance. The young soldier (in green, see picture below) went to ask his superior (who wears no helmet), then they asked another PAP in blue (looks like Tibetan, I suspect the blues are local and the greens are from Neighbouring provinces). I almost gave up. But I finally got lucky when I tried a small alley where there were only a few junior PAP. Even after I got in, there was another layer of check points on exits to Bakhorn. I pretended I was lost and they again let me in.

The soldiers were perhaps told to be polite. They salute before and after checking IDs. Saluting seems to be part of their routine.

There are small temples inside the block there are still open. But I had no luck seeing what is beyond the walls in these 2 major monasteries.

---

See pictures below

Gate of Ramoche Monastery(小昭寺). Guarded.

Front (west) door of Johkang Monastery (大昭寺). Guarded. (but fewer gaurds than Ramoche, perhaps because there is a large plaza as buffer zone) -- this photo was cropped as my finger was blocking the right hand side of my camera-phone

North side of Bakhorn Square, deserted as no tourist allowed in

North side of Bakhorn Street, taking this picture almost got me into trouble. The PAP asked to check my mobile phone suspicious of me taking pictures. I showed him my blackberry which had no camera function:)

Ramoche Street. Between the Ramoche Temple and the famous PAP Shield (south entrance of Ramoche Street). enter with ID check but still quite busy

Alley east of Johkang Monastery

North of Johkang on North Bakhorn, old Tibetan ladies were amused at my hiding behind to take pictures. They were friendly.

Solar pot, in a residential courtyard, in alleys east of Johkang Monastery. A couple middle age ladies were looking at me suspiciously when I walked into the courtyard, but smiled back when I smiled at them

This is inside a small temple south of Jokhang, in the same block ("small templet" in the satellite map). Open, looks like business as usual

Children after school, in the alley

---There pictures below were taken outside the two blocks.

Intersection of Beijing East Rd and Dougeseng Rd (1 block west of Ramoche Street, East of Potala Palace), Burnt buildings

The Bank of China we see on TV. 20 metres east of Ramoche Street (the famous PAP shield picture), south side of Beijing East Road

---Note: personal bloggers are welcome to use these pictures, as long as you do not crop the picture (the pictures here are the original ones without cropping), do not distort through captioning, and provide a courtesy link/acknowledgement.They should not be used by any organization (profit or non-profit) without seeking permission.This is the first time I put up such note. But I do not want my pictures be distorted as Kadfly's shield formation picture was.

2008-04-07

C-C.P.'s view on Mongolia's independence about 60 years ago. This double edge sword works both ways, for the pro-Tibetan activist the analogy (and incocnsistency within C+C=P) is obvious; for the Han-imperialists it would be easy to replace USSR with American/Indian imperialists, and tell about what this buffer state has gone through between then and 1990.

No doubt the line between patriotism and nationlism is very thin. It is also true there the Yellow Emperor as an icon is related to both patriotism and nationalism issues. However, the preeminent reason for what we see (and what the Economist reporter observed) is something he hinted but failed to spelled out.

Governments in Shaanxi and in Henan province, which claims to be the emperor's birthplace, are competing (and reportedly spending millions of dollars) to make their respective Yellow Emperor shrines pre-eminent. Officials in Henan say they are expecting 20,000 emperor-worshippers this month.

Yes, 20,000 tourists is not a lot, but it will grow. This is the underlying reason for the "Governments". To read the Eocnomist you need to pay keen attention to each word it has chosen, the subtlety and the message underneath. Yes, it is about money, tourism yuan, which means GDP, which in turn means promotion. The reporters has very carefully placed the last sentence and used plural and capital letters in the word "Governments" (competition among the provinces). If you have toured China you would have seen these "Yellow Emperor" phenomenon is nothing new. It is not about 'patriotism', it is about money.

There are other lines one can nitpick, which could draw vehement criticism from the anti-cnn.com crowd, such as

"China has produced little convincing evidence of any terrorist campaign within its borders" -- seems the bus bombs in Beijing and Urumqi did not count, however, the Economist could have added "in recent years", which may be a more reasonable statement

"The state media's focus on the alleged pro-Tibetan bias of the Western press in covering the violence in Lhasa has triggered an outpouring of anti-Western sentiment on the internet." -- rather the opposite is true. i.e. it is the internet which started the sentiment and the state media only followed. The Econmist, in its prejudice against the government, played down the power and the will of the people, be it justifiable or not.

It is the nuance and subtlety of wirtings as such which really cultured the "outpouring sentiment".

2008-04-06

Just came back from Lhasa. It was a sight-seeing trip I had planned for many years but I was never able to get to it - due to issues related to travel permit, holiday constraint, plane schedule, hotel booking, etc. Now, everything is easy to book and i know I won't have to fight for the Potala ticket.

I will upload some more photos, plus sharing some anecdotes.

A few quick facts

City is calm and normal, daily business seems thriving (but I should add "sans tourism"), so it looks well on-track to the re-open in May

Potala is quiet, no need for reservation nor even guided tour. Paid 100 Yuan and wandered around freely

Outside Potala is full of Tibetans, almost like a Causeway Bay weekend in HK. Perhaps the closing of the major monasteries have also contributed to driving the people there

The Jokhang and Ramoche Monasteries are still blocked. PAP (or perhaps soldiers) guard every single alley around the block to check IDs. Only local residents are allowed in (but it is not difficult to get into these alleys, and even into Bakhorn street -- will elaborate). The gates of these 2 monasteries are guarded. However, the smaller monasteries around (there are 2 small temples just outside Johkang) are open

PAP are still on major intersections in the city and a few key check points (eg the 2bridge+1tunnel to the airport). Local told me the number of guards per intersection was double what I saw a week or so ago (I saw 6 in that intersection, just enough to stop the people)

"PAP" (they look like younger soldiers) are very courteous and salute to us every time they checked our ID. Seems they had been trained for this and told explicitly to appear polite

Photos are forbidden in guarded areas as a general rule. I had been stopped many time for taking photo with my handphone (mainly around the guard points) but they are satisfied when I obeyed

Gas stations inside Lhasa city are also regulated (but no PAP), only drivers are allowed in, passengers need to wait outside

---Note: personal bloggers are welcome to use these pictures, as long as you do not crop the picture (the pictures here are the original ones without cropping), do not distort through captioning, and provide a courtesy link/acknowledgement.They should not be used by any organization (profit or non-profit) without seeking permission.This is the first time I put up such note. But I do not want my pictures be distorted as Kadfly's shield formation picture was.

Yi Hion Fashion Store, where 5 girls were killed by arson during the riot. On Beijing Road East, about 1 km west of Ramoche Street. There are flowers on the doorsteps, to mourn the victims

The South end of Ramoche Street, guarded - same location as Kadfly's PAP shield pictures, 3 weeks afterward, a new banner was put up in front of the old one.

South of Beijing Road East, opposite to the Ramoche Street picture above, guarded - should be where Kadfly stood while he was taking the photo - the shops behind were burnt (perhaps a few hours after he left).This alley leads to Bakhorn Street. I tried to enter. They checked my ID and turned me away.

2008-04-01

Seems cnn has some blood sucking over-priced lawyer to write this. It basically dodged its previous defense and dropped the "car on fire" excuse. Now it simply said "The one image in question was used wholly appropriately in the specific editorial context and there could be no confusion regarding what it was showing"

To defend the fact that it chose some particuler side of opinions and points of views it concluded its statement with "CNN's reputation is based on reporting global news accurately and impartially, while our coverage through the use of words, images or video always reflects a wide range of opinions and points of view on every story."

:) :) :)

Here I would quote a few comments on that Chinese translated page (this site, despite its name which suggests 'patriotism and military related theme' has mainly rational and educated members)

Hardline critics may be right that North Korean officials will portray these visits as a foreigners' tribute to their "Dear Leader". However, one should not overestimate the efficiency of this propaganda. I grew up in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and officially approved cultural and academic exchanges were a critical source of information about life overseas and helped arouse serious doubts about the communist system.

Professor Lankov's comment is consistent and supported by everything I heard from the Chinese in the 1970s. e.g., the visit of Nixon, Ping-pong diplomacy, opened their eyes to the west, and paved way for Deng's reform which followed. Even though, as Lankov correctly pointed out, Mao was still in power and Deng in the village at the time.